Labour fires back at Blair over New Statesman piece

The party says it is right to challenge "old ways of doing things" after Blair warns against a shift to the left.

Labour has just issued a response to Tony Blair's sharply critical piece in the centenary issue of the New Statesman (180 pages, out today). A party spokesman said: 

It is always important to listen to Tony Blair because he has important points to make, including in this article where he emphasises our top priority must be growth and jobs.

As he was the first to recognise, politics always has to move on to cope with new challenges and different circumstances.

For example, on immigration, Labour is learning lessons about the mistakes in office and crafting an immigration policy that will make Britain's diversity work for all not just a few.

It is by challenging old ways of doing things, showing we have understood what we did right and wrong during our time in office that One Nation Labour will win back people's trust.

In other words, Ed Miliband's position remains as before: Blair's "third way" does not represent an appropriate response to Britain's current economic and social problems. 

It is notable that rather than rejecting his warning not to "tack left on tax and spending", the party chose to highlight the example of immigration (he urged the party not to "tack right on immigration"). Blair is known to disagree with Miliband's recent decision to apologise for not imposing transitional controls on migration from eastern Europe, which he regarded as essential to fill gaps in the labour market at a time of growth. For Miliband, this is a useful example of how he is moving on not just from New Labour's excessive economic liberalism but also what an increasing number in the party view as its excessive social liberalism. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference on November 19, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Benn vs McDonnell: how Brexit has exposed the fight over Labour's party machine

In the wake of Brexit, should Labour MPs listen more closely to voters, or their own party members?

Two Labour MPs on primetime TV. Two prominent politicians ruling themselves out of a Labour leadership contest. But that was as far as the similarity went.

Hilary Benn was speaking hours after he resigned - or was sacked - from the Shadow Cabinet. He described Jeremy Corbyn as a "good and decent man" but not a leader.

Framing his overnight removal as a matter of conscience, Benn told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I no longer have confidence in him [Corbyn] and I think the right thing to do would be for him to take that decision."

In Benn's view, diehard leftie pin ups do not go down well in the real world, or on the ballot papers of middle England. 

But while Benn may be drawing on a New Labour truism, this in turn rests on the assumption that voters matter more than the party members when it comes to winning elections.

That assumption was contested moments later by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Dismissive of the personal appeal of Shadow Cabinet ministers - "we can replace them" - McDonnell's message was that Labour under Corbyn had rejuvenated its electoral machine.

Pointing to success in by-elections and the London mayoral election, McDonnell warned would-be rebels: "Who is sovereign in our party? The people who are soverign are the party members. 

"I'm saying respect the party members. And in that way we can hold together and win the next election."

Indeed, nearly a year on from Corbyn's surprise election to the Labour leadership, it is worth remembering he captured nearly 60% of the 400,000 votes cast. Momentum, the grassroots organisation formed in the wake of his success, now has more than 50 branches around the country.

Come the next election, it will be these grassroots members who will knock on doors, hand out leaflets and perhaps even threaten to deselect MPs.

The question for wavering Labour MPs will be whether what they trust more - their own connection with voters, or this potentially unbiddable party machine.